The most important factors of these crimes are the severity of aggression, the amount of the drugs found and the actions of the offender. These acts could include selling, distributing and possession of large quantities of drugs. If the more serious substances are found such as heroin, the charges may increase. When others are affected or included in these operations such as children or additional crimes of abuse may be added, the severity increases and the charges are worse. Then, penalties may cause the perpetrator to live out his or her life in prison. It is important to have a lawyer to assist with reducing charges or negotiating a deal whenever possible.
Despite the fact that aggression is given worse penalties, even non-offenders receive harsh punishments for drug possession and consumption. This is due to the legal practices in place that have pushed these penalties far further and greater than they have been recommended by officials. A push for worse penalties for anyone using or caught with drugs is an initiative that politicians use for election campaigns, and the communities often are in agreement. However, when these practices affect the loved ones that are in the wrong place at the wrong time, they may think twice about what has been implemented locally and nationally.
Violence is one of the factors that increases sentencing for drug offenders. So, the loved ones that face seeing their children, friends or family placed in prison for consuming and possessing drugs even when no aggression was used. This leads them to question the practices in place and why even small amounts of easily purchased or acquired drugs that are legal in other states are the cause of years or decades behind bars. The consequences of an arrest and conviction for these crimes are more severe than has been advised by experts, and this is an imbalance with other worse crimes committed.
When a non-violent offender has been arrested, he or she may face questioning from law enforcement officers. However, it is crucial that a lawyer is present at all times when these sessions occur. To keep from incriminating himself or herself, the defendant requires legal representation in knowing what to say, what details to provide and if any deals are possible how to negotiate these. If the charges have enough evidence to proceed to trial, the defendant may need to gather as much proof of his or her innocence. When this is lacking, the lawyer may assist through picking apart the prosecutions argument.
However, if the worst happens, and conviction is likely, the lawyer may seek to negotiate a deal. Because the defendant is non-violent and was not aggressive during or after the arrest, this should work in favor of a possible lowered sentence or a converted penalty to probation or rehabilitation through a program. No matter which route is taken, the defendant should ensure his or her lawyer is negotiating a possible reduction in punishments due to the severity of drug sentences through laws implemented to ensure offenders are facing severe consequences. Then, it may be possible to have a life after leaving prison.
The primary argument for the offender is that the entire situation involved no violence or aggression. This usually helps in reducing the conviction’s sentencing. When the judge is lenient or understands the circumstances, it may be possible for the lawyer to negotiate a better deal for the offender.
However, the NFL code of conduct, which we have discussed before is explicit about addressing misbehavior regardless of the criminal outcome, if any. So the NFL initiated an internal investigation which included a panel of experts, including former New Jersey Attorney General, Peter Harvey; Mary Jo White, a former US attorney; Tonya Lovelace, a domestic violence expert and CEO of Women of Color Network; and pro football hall of famer, Kenneth Houston. Together they conducted a review of the evidence, including texts, pictures and other records, police reports, witness statements and extensive interviews with the victim as well as Elliott and his representatives. They decided a six game suspension would be appropriate, which is the minimum suspension for a first time offense according to their conduct policy. The policy was updated in 2014 after the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, where the NFL was criticized for not taking player discipline seriously enough.At this point, which was near the start of the football season, Elliott’s union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) began making their legal moves on his behalf. They filed an appeal against the ruling to the NFL arbitrator appointed in this case, Harold Henderson, arguing that the accuser was unreliable, the proceedings secretive and unfair, and that the evidence is inconsistent. They further sought a restraining order in court which would temporarily keep the NFL from suspending Elliott.Henderson decided to uphold the ban. His decision was not based on whether he found Elliott guilty or innocent, but whether the proceedings were fair and consistent with NFL policies and procedures. However Elliott was permitted to play the first game while the question of a restraining order was settled in court.
But before the restraining order was addressed, the NFLPA filed a preliminary injunction, arguing the NFL proceedings were unfair and the ruling to uphold the suspension should be dismissed. Upon review of the procedures and the arbitrator’s ruling, the Court ruled against the NFL. The judge found that there was enough doubt as to the transparency of the proceedings to grant the injunction, which is what has allowed Elliott to continue to play since the start of the season.In response, the NFL filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court to overrule the decision that allowed Elliott to keep playing. The Court agreed to hear arguments on October 2nd and last week they made their decision in favor of the NFL, effectively reinstating the ban. This brings us to the present, where Elliott’s legal team has revived its attempt at the temporary restraining order. On Tuesday the 17th, the Court looked like it would reject this motion. But by the end of the day the restraining order was granted and Elliott was set to play again in time for the 49ers game. The next legal battle is scheduled for October 30th which means Elliott will be playing against Washington the Sunday before. This back and forth between NFL administrative processes and formal legal proceedings has been confusing, and followed a similar pattern to Tom Brady’s previous legal battle against his four game suspension for the now infamous “deflategate”. Elliott has won the latest legal round, but the war is far from over for him.
0 comments:
Post a Comment